This was just an introductory
case that introduced subject matter jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction and
what sources judges draw upon to form their rulings.

As a matter of law, domicile
means residency plus intent to remain.We weighed factors on each side about whether Gordon intended to stay in
Idaho.What do these
factors mean for us?

What about all the sexist
stuff in the opinion?The comments were “of
their time”, certainly.Was it offensive?What about the context of Gordon’s religion?

Should a lawyer play upon a
judge’s biases to help their client?

What might have been factual
then might be different now.

These are questions of both
strategy and legal ethics (a topic for another course).

Does it matter if Gordon’s
parents were paying her rent?The issue
of residency and intent to remain for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction
and diversity jurisdiction has nothing to do with residency for admission or
fees at a university.In other words,
this isn’t the same matter as when you figure out if you’re paying resident or
non-resident tuition.Your parents’
support doesn’t matter in regard to intent to remain.

Why did the defendants bring
this motion to dismiss?There are several
possibilities.There may be a two-year
statute of limitations, so the defendants wanted to drag things out.The plaintiffs filed in federal court because
they thought it would give them an advantage as far as the federal rules of
evidence, so the defendants would like to not be subject to these rules.If you can crank out all the ethical
pre-trial motions, maybe you can out-wait the other side.

It’s an old case, it’s hard
to read, it’s a classic case.Many books
begin with this as the first case.It’s traditional!It’s an historically important case.

We want to look at the
historical roots so we can see where the modern concepts come from.In fact, Pennoyer has not actually
been overruled.It’s not completely
history.

We’re in Oregon.How many
lawsuits are involved in this case?We
have two of them.That’s confusing.Steve gives us some notes to help us try to
sort it all out, but we’re not sure if he does a great job.

Who’s in the first
lawsuit?Mitchell is an attorney who is
suing Neff for not paying legal fees.Neff
hired Mitchell to help him get a federal land grant.We go to state court in Oregon and get Mitchell v. Neff.

The lawsuit is over the
unpaid legal fees (payment of a debt).

Notice: how does Neff know he is getting sued?They printed it in the paper.[1]

Mitchell wins by default
because Neff doesn’t show up.“Those are
great!You almost always win those.”

Ex parte- without the other side.

What happens next?Mitchell’s won the lawsuit.Now Neff buys a tract of land in Oregon after the lawsuit is over.Mitchell has his judgment for a certain
amount of money, but it’s worthless unless you can collect on the lawsuit.You want to usually check before you file a
lawsuit if you will actually be able to collect.

Neff didn’t have anything
before, but now he does.Mitchell wants
to attach (seize) this land in order to satisfy his judgment.Pennoyer buys the land at the sheriff’s sale.

Does it matter that Pennoyer…wait,
what did he do?There were
shenanigans.It doesn’t matter who
bought the land at the sheriff’s sale.(Mitchell was the only buyer at the auction and he paid exactly what he
was owed.)

Mitchell is trying to use
this new property to satisfy his judgment.So Pennoyer gets the sheriff’s deed, and Mitchell gets the cash.

-Can
Mitchell attach the potential for future land?No.But Mitchell knows Neff is
going to get the land because he helped him to get the land.Neff was Mitchell’s client.Didn’t Mitchell have contact information for
Neff?

-When
you attach property, you sell it all, then give the excess money to the
original owner.

What was the basis of Neff’s
lawsuit?It’s that Neff never got notice
of the first lawsuit, thus the first lawsuit isn’t valid, thus the judgment isn’t
valid, and thus the land shouldn’t have been sold.

Pennoyer’s defense is that
process was properly served.

What’s service of process?The method by which you notify someone about
a lawsuit.Process is the papers
themselves.By FRCP Rule 12, you can get
cases dismiss by invalid service of process or invalid process.Sometimes you need to present a summons and a
complaint, sometimes just the complaint, even sometimes just the summons.

Didn’t Oregon law only allow constructive service of process only
when the non-resident owned property in Oregon?Well, the
lawsuit was decided by default, so it didn’t come up.This doesn’t matter in the Supreme Court,
either, because it becomes a constitutional deal.

Two ways to serve someone
process: you can serve them personally, or you can serve them constructively.Not everybody is so accessible.

You can be served process by
certified mail.You can also be served
by publication, and that’s what happened in Pennoyer.

What if someone is evading
service?You can ask the judge to let
you do an alternative form of service, like nailing something to their
door.(You have to follow the method of service
prescribed by the court, though.)

Keep in mind that there were
no Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the 1800s.The federal government would have used the
state rules.Today, Rule 4 would tell
you exactly what to do.

Mitchell is kinda slimy.

Pennoyer gets screwed.

What’s the point of having a “special
appearance”?This is a fiction we allow
so we can let you challenge whether or not a court has jurisdiction over
you.This is an alternative to “collateral
attack”.